Dak Thread....still debating, beating a dead horse

[textaz03]

11 hours ago, DaBoys said:

Sam Darnold, will get another shot somewhere. It would be interesting to see him on a team that isn’t the worst in the league. Remember he finished last year 6-2 with the jets. He also beat Daks Cowboys. He isn’t a bust yet.

Daniel Jones is still well liked by Giants fans as well. I’ll give you Lynch, Trubisky, Haskins, and Rosen though.

 

So 4 out of the last 16 first round QBs are busts. If you want to count Tua and Love as busts...then okay. That makes 6 of 16. Still way better odds then you dark ages preachers like to let on.

Hell we could probably go back and see most of us were saying that Lynch, Trubisky and Rosen all got picked well ahead of where they should have. 

[TheStarStillShines]

5 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

So what you are saying is that it’s easier to play QB in the nfl in this era.  You are saying that while there is always risk in drafting a qb, over the past 5 years it’s more likely that a qb will work out especially if there is a quality team around the QB.  That’s reasonable.

 

it seems to me that the absolute best thing to do then would be to trade Dak to the highest bidder.  We use the extra draft picks and the $30+ million saved to upgrade the entire roster so the new QB has a great supporting cast.  We take advantage of the low cost QB for the next 5 years.  I like the way you think TSSS.  This sounds like a much better alternative than paying Dak $37M and not being able to upgrade the team.  

I'm actually not against the idea of trading Dak if the team: a) can get a sizeable return (I don't think 2 first-round picks is likely but maybe a 1st and a 3rd); and b) are in a position to draft either Lawrence or Fields (doesn't look likely right now). My point is that narrowly focusing on Dak's contract ignores much larger issues. There's no guarantee that your position would work for the Boys. The team can upgrade the roster around Dak being paid $37M, but it would take smart cap management (not something the Joneses are always successful at doing).

And I wouldn't say it's easier to be a QB in today's NFL. There certainly is much broader scope on what it means to be a QB. Gone is the notion that a QB has to be at least 6'4", have a rifle arm, and just sit in the pocket.

[DaBoys]

10 hours ago, TheStarStillShines said:

Martin's contract is fine. Smith's contract, and the subsequent restructures, is problematic given his poor health. Cooper and Lawrence are paid like top-5 guys at their position, but they haven't delivered.

Can you be any more patronizing? And yes, today's NFL is more pass happy. The comment about Leinart had nothing to do with how the NFL game has evolved. It was a comment that even highly-regarded QBs can become busts. You completely misread the comment and offered an observation that even the most casual football fan would know. Congratulations for being bloody patronizing and standing on your soap box.

And no, not nearly every 1st-round QB in the past five years has had success. Let's go through them (we'll omit 2020's class since it's still early).

2015 - Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota - #1 & #2 overall. Both are busts

2016 - Jared Goff, Caron Wentz, and Paxton Lynch - Goff is good but not great; Wentz has had mixed success but has been awful the last two years; Lynch is out of the league

2017 - Mitchell Trubisky, Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson - 2 studs (an MVP & SB MVP) and a bust

2018 - Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, Josh Rosen, Lamar Jackson - Mayfield has been up & down. Darnold and Rosen can't see the field. Allen has had a great 2020. Jackson is the reigning MVP, although he's had an inconsistent 2020.

2019 - Kyler Murray, Daniel Jones, Dwayne Haskins - one potential franchise QB, the jury is still out on Jones, and Haskins is a 3rd stringer that could be traded in the off-season.

Of the 16 QBs selected, 7 have been busts (I think Trubisky is a bust), two MVPs in the group, and the remaining 7 are middling to serviceable to pretty darn good (Allen). The 2020 class looks good so far, but again it's a bit early. And no, 66.7% by your calculation (mine is lower than that) is not "damn near everyone". If you said, "the majority of QB selected in the first round have worked out", then by your definition you would be correct. Now how you define "worked out" is subject to debate. For instance, I don't think one could say "Darnold has worked out" given the Jets have long been considering replacing him.

“Using a stat you like to use so often...” 

-TSSS

 

You are being just as bloody patronizing, I’m just not whining about it like you because I’m not losing the debate like you are.

And, no, we aren’t going to exclude this years draft class because you know Herby and Burrow looked good.

 

I said the last 5 years. That doesn’t mean exclude data from last year, and include data from 6 years ago. But nice try. 
 

I’m also not interested in sitting down and evaluating each QB with you as I have already determined we don’t see eye to eye on who is good and who isn’t. You think Dak deserves a super contract, while you aren’t sold on Kyler Murray. Clearly.... you evaluate QBs with blue and silver glasses on

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by DaBoys

[DaBoys]

10 hours ago, TheStarStillShines said:

How the heck do you say, "wins aren't a QB stat", yet still use it when discussing Dak? You even used won-loss record to justify Sam Darnold "working out" for the Jets (BTW, he was actually 7-6 last year and has a career 11-23 record). Talk about hypocritical.

 Lol reading comprehension fail...

He said Herbert and Burrow were trash because the win loss record. I said wins aren’t  a QB stat, and noted that they have 4x as many wins as Dak this year. 
 

then I put a “see?” As in see wins don’t mean anything?

 

Then you accuse me of using it against Dak. Can’t make this stuff up. 
 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by DaBoys

[DaBoys]

Edited December 9, 2020 by DaBoys

[TheStarStillShines]

11 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

“Using a stat you like to use so often...” 

-TSSS

 

You are being just as bloody patronizing, I’m just not whining about it like you because I’m not losing the debate like you are.

And, no, we aren’t going to exclude this years draft class because you know Herby and Burrow looked good.

 

I said the last 5 years. That doesn’t mean exclude data from last year, and include data from 6 years ago. But nice try. 
 

I’m also not interested in sitting down and evaluating each QB with you as I have already determined we don’t see eye to eye on who is good and who isn’t. You think Dak deserves a super contract, while you aren’t sold on Kyler Murray. Clearly.... you evaluate QBs with blue and silver glasses on

 

I don't think anyone is winning or losing this debate. We're having a discussion. And yeah, you've used the won-loss record as a reason why the team should move from Dak and then you said that a team's record is not a QB stat. So what is it? You can't throw out stats when they suit your argument. You have to be consistent.

I used five previous drafts, excluding 2020. I think we all agreed that it's too early to draw any conclusions from this year's draft class, but three of them are looking really good.

Finally, as I stated above, I'm not adverse to dealing Dak. And if you read more carefully, I have never said anything about Dak's contract. I have consistently argued that placing the blame for the team's struggles on Dak and his contract is myopic at best, ignoring the many issues that plague the team and the numerous poor contracts on the roster. The Boys' suckitude lies in the systemic issues that have plagued the Boys for nearly three decades. It is not isolated to a single player or his contract.

[DaBoys]

1 minute ago, TheStarStillShines said:

I don't think anyone is winning or losing this debate. We're having a discussion. And yeah, you've used the won-loss record as a reason why the team should move from Dak and then you said that a team's record is not a QB stat. So what is it? You can't throw out stats when they suit your argument. You have to be consistent.

I used five previous drafts, excluding 2020. I think we all agreed that it's too early to draw any conclusions from this year's draft class, but three of them are looking really good.

Finally, as I stated above, I'm not adverse to dealing Dak. And if you read more carefully, I have never said anything about Dak's contract. I have consistently argued that placing the blame for the team's struggles on Dak and his contract is myopic at best, ignoring the many issues that plague the team and the numerous poor contracts on the roster. The Boys' suckitude lies in the systemic issues that have plagued the Boys for nearly three decades. It is not isolated to a single player or his contract.

No one blames just Daks contract. I bet everyone here hates our run D just as much if not more. 
 

The problem is we have several holes on defense. Maybe some along the OL, and a vacancy at QB.

 

I just don’t think our biggest FA acquisition should be a $40m QB. That isn’t smart given our many holes. 

[TheStarStillShines]

On 11/2/2020 at 2:36 PM, DaBoys said:

Once again, when people said we didn’t need a $40M QB to win games with this roster... ..we weren’t talking about this roster. It was teams like the 2014 roster when Romo was just 14th in yards and 23rd in passing attempts. The 2016 roster when Dak was 19th in yards and 23rd in passing attempts. The 2018 roster when Dak was 16th in both yards and attempts. Those rosters didn’t rely on the QBs arm to get wins. You could very literally plug in a lesser QB in those situations and allocate funds elsewhere. 
 

Letting your best DB walk in FA with your best pass rusher from a year ago, changing defensive schemes, losing Chido, Brown, Lewis, LVE to injury, and Malik Collins, Jeff yes I said it Heath to FA, your entire offensive line goes down, and getting a new HC....

does not count as the same team. If you hadn’t noticed Dak was 1-4 with these weapons, and really should have been 0-5. 

Here is an example of you using W-L record as an indictment of Dak's ability. This is just one example. BTW, I'm not saying this is your only argument.

[TheStarStillShines]

5 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

No one blames just Daks contract. I bet everyone here hates our run D just as much if not more. 
 

The problem is we have several holes on defense. Maybe some along the OL, and a vacancy at QB.

 

I just don’t think our biggest FA acquisition should be a $40m QB. That isn’t smart given our many holes. 

Fair enough. I'm all for dealing Dak if the Boys can draft Lawrence or Fields. I'm also of the opinion that replacing Dak won't be as easy as some people think should the Boys not have a top-2 or -3 pick. A team can only go so far with the Andy Daltons of the world. 

[DaBoys]

1 minute ago, TheStarStillShines said:

Here is an example of you using W-L record as an indictment of Dak's ability. This is just one example. BTW, I'm not saying this is your only argument.

Nope. This was in response to people saying we can’t win without Dak. I was just pointing out that weren’t really winning with him either. We weren’t winning with or without him. If anything that backs up that wins are indeed not a QB stats

[DaBoys]

15 minutes ago, TheStarStillShines said:

Fair enough. I'm all for dealing Dak if the Boys can draft Lawrence or Fields. I'm also of the opinion that replacing Dak won't be as easy as some people think should the Boys not have a top-2 or -3 pick. A team can only go so far with the Andy Daltons of the world. 

You can go further with the Andy Daltons of the world if you use your cap to surround them with better talent.

for instance, at the end of the Half yesterday CD drops a pass in the endzone(and a missed PI the play before).Had he caught it, that would be 24 points. We had three missed fgs. Had they been converted we score 33 points in yesterdays game. Had the defense been at least serviceable we may have won. None of those points that got left on the field were because of Dalton. But all people see is our 17 points and say Dalton sucks. 
 

Right now, we have like $27m in cap room that we are aftaid to touch until we get Dak signed. We also have $31+M going directly to Dak already. That’s $58M in cap space just freakin sitting there, and yes Dak has a lot to do with it. 
 

Andy Dalton plus six $~10m a year defenders, will get a lot further than Dak and what we have now.

Edited December 9, 2020 by DaBoys

[DaBoys]

Let’s say that our only big FA acquisition is a $40m QB. Our only hope to help the defense is to draft. Great! We have a high pick in possibly the worst draft of my life, featuring mostly players that opted out. 
 

So lets say we are competitive anyway because we have Dak. Dak is a mobile QB. Mobile QBs get hurt. He was hurt at the end of 2019(broken fingers, shoulder), and couldn’t finish the 2020 season.

 

So we really want to build our roster so that we are a 7 to 10 win team with Dak, and maybe the worst team in the league without him?

Talk about risk

Edited December 9, 2020 by DaBoys

[TheStarStillShines]

Until the front office changes, the team's fortunes likely won't change a whole lot whether they have a $35M-$40M quarterback or a $5M QB and a bunch of defenders making $10M (which in today's NFL amounts to a slightly above-average player). The team could be actually a lot worse in the latter situation, especially if the QB is another Chad Hutchinson or Quincy Carter. Heck, the team lucked into Prescott and before him Tony Romo (thinking about it the two are roughly similar). . 

[plan9misfit]

18 hours ago, TheStarStillShines said:

Using the statistic you like to quote so often - Prescott was 22-10 in his first two years. Murray is just 11-16-1. Dak had better numbers in terms of YPC, YPA, TDs, fewer INTs, higher QBR and rating over those two years. Dak did, however, have a down sophomore year while Murray has gotten better (needs to cut down on the turnovers, though).

But the point isn't about comparing QBs or when to take a QB since QBs are extremely volatile no matter when they are selected (e.g., Plan, Slam, myself, and others were really high on Matt Leinart and boy do we look wrong). My point and others has long been that to focus on Dak's contract as the sole reason why the Boys are yet in another era of mediocrity is simply ridiculous. This argument is beyond myopic since it ignores a bevy of issues with the club. If people want to say that the Joneses' mismanagement of the cap, which includes the handling of Dak's contract plus allocating about about half of the total cap to 6 other players (T. Smith, J. Smith, Zeke, Cooper, Martin, Lawrence), then I'm totally on board. Then there is the questionable coaching, the inconsistent drafts the team has had, etc. One issue doesn't plague the Boys, but rather it's a number of things and it is systemic (i.e., has been lasting for more than two decades). 

If any of us knew that Leinart was far more interested in his celebrity than playing football, none of us would’ve wanted him. 

[Northland]

I'm a Dak fan but I hope he is working with his agent to figure a way to get out of Dallas fast.  Never going to win a thing here.  If all he wants is money maybe it happens with Jerry.  If one's goal is to compete for a championship then Dallas is about the last place anyone would want to be.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Northland